PDA

View Full Version : The Unfortunate Problems of the Raiders


awfullyquiet
11-06-2008, 12:37 AM
I feel hopeful for the lions and chiefs and even the bungles...

but the raiders? i don't feel that hope.

there is no precedence for if owners destroy a franchise... what is to be done? does goodell HAVE to interceed sometime, if not soon, when? do you just let the raiders spiral into cap hell and mismanagement? or how about just let them fall into blackout land (sorry raiders fans)...

Is this situation that bad? Has there ever been a situation THIS bad? or is this simply a sign of the times overreacting?

MetSox17
11-06-2008, 12:39 AM
I think the NFL has proven that it's at the very least, cyclical. Eventually the Raiders will get around to winning again. It may not be soon, but it's a little far fetched to say that they'll never be successful. Al Davis isn't gonna be around much longer (for whatever reason you can think of), so new management should do a better job than the one that's being done right now. I'd hate to go there as an employee any time soon, though. Good luck finding a coach, Al.

TitleTown088
11-06-2008, 12:41 AM
what is to be done?
Couldn't resist...
http://www.askwinston.co.uk/lenin.jpg

giantsfan
11-06-2008, 12:41 AM
I feel hopeful for the lions and chiefs and even the bungles...

but the raiders? i don't feel that hope.

there is no precedence for if owners destroy a franchise... what is to be done? does goodell HAVE to interceed sometime, if not soon, when? do you just let the raiders spiral into cap hell and mismanagement? or how about just let them fall into blackout land (sorry raiders fans)...

Is this situation that bad? Has there ever been a situation THIS bad? or is this simply a sign of the times overreacting?

Isiah Thomas' 4 years in charge of the knicks in the NBA where you have gauranteed contracts was much more destructive. You just let the raiders suck until al can no longer afford to keep the team or passes on.

awfullyquiet
11-06-2008, 12:48 AM
I think the NFL has proven that it's at the very least, cyclical. Eventually the Raiders will get around to winning again. It may not be soon, but it's a little far fetched to say that they'll never be successful. Al Davis isn't gonna be around much longer (for whatever reason you can think of), so new management should do a better job than the one that's being done right now. I'd hate to go there as an employee any time soon, though. Good luck finding a coach, Al.

Of course it's just a matter of when?

But is it good for the league to let economics and the 'cycle' determine the 'when'?

giantsfan
11-06-2008, 12:52 AM
Of course it's just a matter of when?

But is it good for the league to let economics and the 'cycle' determine the 'when'?

Better than trying to have the fuhrer decide when without f'ing everything else up.

awfullyquiet
11-06-2008, 12:53 AM
Better than trying to have the fuhrer decide when without f'ing everything else up.

At what point would the furher have to?

That's where i'm getting at. What's the tipping point of the absolute ridiculousness and foolishness of the franchise that it becomes a distraction as a whole to the league?

MetSox17
11-06-2008, 12:54 AM
Of course it's just a matter of when?

But is it good for the league to let economics and the 'cycle' determine the 'when'?

I don't think it's the responsibility of the league to determine the 'when' either. Might as well remain in the middle ground and let the problem fix itself. If it gets to a point where Al Davis is embarrassing the league and clearly shows he is not competent enough to run a franchise, then that's when the league or other owners can step in. Sadly, until then, i think it's out of their hands.

giantsfan
11-06-2008, 12:54 AM
At what point would the furher have to?

That's where i'm getting at. What's the tipping point of the absolute ridiculousness and foolishness of the franchise that it becomes a distraction as a whole to the league?

There's no such point, nothing's worse than having a single person who's interests aren't tied completely to those of the organization making decisions for an organization, I don't care how wise he is if it's not his problem he won't care as much or do as well of a job.

Pb&j
11-06-2008, 01:01 AM
I disagree that the Raiders have the worst ownership. At least in the 1990s and early 2000's they had successes and made the super bowl once.

The Bengals on the other hand have had exactly ONE winning season since 1991. Since that time only 9 teams have gone 0-8, the Bengals have started 0-8 FOUR TIMES. The front office is a joke and they have done absolutely nothing in the league.

Whenever I think it sucks balls to be a Browns fan I always look to the Bengals to feel better.

Notredameleo
11-06-2008, 01:02 AM
Who would sign with them? Honestly, who in their right mind would sign a Free agent contract with the raiders? anyone?

awfullyquiet
11-06-2008, 01:04 AM
I disagree that the Raiders have the worst ownership. At least in the 1990s and early 2000's they had successes and made the super bowl once.

the bengals HAVE gotten a lot better over the past 10 years.

giantsfan
11-06-2008, 01:06 AM
the bengals HAVE gotten a lot better over the past 10 years.

Meh, they got Carson Palmer and he turned out to be gold, if he had busted like a lot of their other picks the bengals would still be completely hopeless. That ownership group is just as embarassingly bad IMO.

awfullyquiet
11-06-2008, 01:11 AM
Meh, they got Carson Palmer and he turned out to be gold, if he had busted like a lot of their other picks the bengals would still be completely hopeless. That ownership group is just as embarassingly bad IMO.

The bengals haven't been THAT bad over the past 10 years. They've had plenty more hits than you'd believe, the problem is, their hits tend to create felonies instead of wins.

giantsfan
11-06-2008, 01:18 AM
The bengals haven't been THAT bad over the past 10 years. They've had plenty more hits than you'd believe, the problem is, their hits tend to create felonies instead of wins.

Which results in quick suspensions and the burning out of promising careers and ultimately just create more failure.

Geo
11-06-2008, 01:28 AM
Who would sign with them? Honestly, who in their right mind would sign a Free agent contract with the raiders? anyone?
Wouldn't hurt to mainly build up through the Draft. That's how they have most of their good players now anyways.

Paranoidmoonduck
11-06-2008, 01:43 AM
Don't rub it in.

Pb&j
11-06-2008, 01:45 AM
For all of those that claim the Bengals haven't been that bad, think of it this way. Exactly ONE winning season since 1991. Just because you have hit on a few draft picks and had some 7-9 seasons doesn't mean a thing. That team has literally won absolutely nothing in its entire existence.

yourfavestoner
11-06-2008, 02:35 AM
Of course it's just a matter of when?

But is it good for the league to let economics and the 'cycle' determine the 'when'?

I guess your view would depend on if you're a socialist or a laissez faire type of person.

Pb&j
11-06-2008, 02:54 AM
I guess your view would depend on if you're a socialist or a laissez faire type of person.

Since the salary cap and free agency have been introduced the league has strived for parity - No dynastys, no perpetual bottom feeders, a new super bowl winner every year. It isn't in the best interest for the league to have the money sort itself out. A competitive NFL is a profitable NFL.

However, the way the system is set up there is not much more they can do. They have already introduced the salary cap and revenue sharing. They cannot remove an owner unless something crazy happens.

fenikz
11-06-2008, 03:07 AM
Isiah Thomas' 4 years in charge of the knicks in the NBA where you have gauranteed contracts was much more destructive. You just let the raiders suck until al can no longer afford to keep the team or passes on.

you act like the knicks are actually going to stop sucking

giantsfan
11-06-2008, 03:11 AM
you act like the knicks are actually going to stop sucking

hey we might be competitive by 2011. Chandler's looking good, I like Gallo under mike D and nate's a great 6th man for the pace we want to play, hopefully by then we'll be rid of everyone else and have found some people to fill in around them *prays for Ricky Rick*

Kurve
11-06-2008, 03:20 AM
I disagree that the Raiders have the worst ownership. At least in the 1990s and early 2000's they had successes and made the super bowl once.

The Bengals on the other hand have had exactly ONE winning season since 1991. Since that time only 9 teams have gone 0-8, the Bengals have started 0-8 FOUR TIMES. The front office is a joke and they have done absolutely nothing in the league.

Whenever I think it sucks balls to be a Browns fan I always look to the Bengals to feel better.


Raiders didnt have success in the 90s ..... bengals are bad too but raiders by no means have had success other then the few years gruden had them here is what i posted in the raider team section earlier this week.

Last 20 years win loss records.

1988 7-9 (3rd in Division) Shanahan
1989 8-8 (3rd in Division) Shanahan/Shell
1990 12-4(1st in Division)* Shell
1991 9-7 (3rd in Division) Shell
1992 7-9 (4th in Division) Shell
1993 10-6(2nd in Division)* Shell
1994 9-7 (3rd in Division) Shell
1995 8-8 (last in Division) White
1996 7-9 (4th in Division) White
1997 4-12 (4th in Division) Bugel
1998 8-8 (2nd in Division) Gruden
1999 8-8 (4th in Division) Gruden
2000 12-4 (1st in Division)* Gruden
2001 10-6 (1st in Division)* Gruden
2002 11-5 (1st in Division)* Callahan
2003 4-12 (3rd in Division) Callahan
2004 5-11 (last in Division) Turner
2005 4-12 (last in Division) Turner
2006 2-14 (last in Division) Shell
2007 4-12 (last in Division) Kiffin
2008 2-6 Kiffin/Cable


in 20 years had 9 coaching changes, combined w/l % (.484%) 5 Playoff appearances and average aft west standing of 3rd place now this is a team that in the 70s and early 80s had the best winning % in football and won 3 sb rings..... the truth is that this problem started long time ago and it finally showed its ugly face to the nfl. AL has been destroying this franchise slowly but surely and seems to have ran its last lap ....... raiders legacy and history will always be tarnished due to what Al has been doing to this team for the past 20 years.

fenikz
11-06-2008, 03:43 AM
cardinals got that beat by alot

88 Stallings 7-9
89 Stallings/Kulhmann 5-11
90 Bugel 5-11
91 Bugel 4-12
92 Bugel 4-12
93 Bugel 7-9
94 Ryan 8-8
95 Ryan 4-12
96 Tobin 7-9
97 Tobin 4-12
98 Tobin 9-7*
99 Tobin 6-10
00 Tobin/McGinnis 3-13
01 McGinnis 7-9
02 McGinnis 5-11
03 McGinnis 4-12
04 Green 6-10
05 Green 5-11
06 Green 5-11
07 Whisenhunt 8-8
08 Whisenhunt 5-3

stephenson86
11-06-2008, 06:33 AM
cardinals trump bengals

BlindSite
11-06-2008, 08:50 AM
It doesn't take that long to turn a team around, but until Al Davis relinquishes control, its going to be impossible to do.

Splat
11-06-2008, 08:59 AM
This thread makes me realize my Chiefs aren't really that bad just having a down year.:)

vidae
11-06-2008, 10:14 AM
Cardinals might have had a worse 10-15 years, but who honestly thinks they're worse off than the Raiders?

Iamcanadian
11-06-2008, 10:53 AM
I'll take Al Davis over William Clay Ford any day of the week. Oakland may be a joke the last few years of Al's life, WCF has been a joke since he owned the team. H...mmm, 1 playoff appearance in 50+ years vs Al Davis's career record.
When WCF retires, the Lions will have zero talent on the team, when Davis dies, the new owner will probably have a pretty decent team to build upon.
The owner of the Bengals at least has some excuses for being a bad owner, Cincy is a very small city which provides their owner with minimal revenues upon which to build the team. He is known as being cheap but I think it has more to do with revenues than simply not wanting to spend money. Cincy has a very low budget for scouting and even the firing of a HC is affected by the cost of paying 2 HC's at the same time.
WCF on the other hand owns a team in one of the best markets in North America and revenues has never been a problem yet our scouting department is the worst in pro football??? WCF is by definition, the perfect example of the worst owner in sports. I think you can buy a share in the Ford Motor Company for about $2.10 a share on today's market. So the Lions aren't the only business he's driven into the ground.

P-L
11-06-2008, 11:01 AM
I'll take Al Davis over William Clay Ford any day of the week. Oakland may be a joke the last few years of Al's life, WCF has been a joke since he owned the team. H...mmm, 1 playoff appearance in 50+ years vs Al Davis's career record.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I wouldn't go that far. Davis definitely has the better track record, but right now I wouldn't trade Ford for Davis going forward.

Dam8610
11-06-2008, 11:58 AM
I feel hopeful for the lions and chiefs and even the bungles...

but the raiders? i don't feel that hope.

there is no precedence for if owners destroy a franchise... what is to be done? does goodell HAVE to interceed sometime, if not soon, when? do you just let the raiders spiral into cap hell and mismanagement? or how about just let them fall into blackout land (sorry raiders fans)...

Is this situation that bad? Has there ever been a situation THIS bad? or is this simply a sign of the times overreacting?

There was an article a couple months back that talked about a potential solution to the Al Davis problem. The writer suggested the minority shareholders might be able to take some action due to his terrible mismanagement potentially costing them profits. He suggested they take a case to Goodell, who could potentially take some type of action to remove Al Davis at that point. Of course, even the writer acknowledged any scenario where Al Davis is no longer in total control of the Raiders before his death is a longshot.

And yes, the situation is that bad. The worst thing about bad owners is you can't replace them. Bad players can be replaced, sometimes almost immediately depending on the investment made in said player. Bad coaches can be replaced, their effect may linger for a little while (most believe it takes 3 years for a coach to install his own system), but it won't stay for very long. Even a bad GM can be replaced, and while his bad decisions usually will linger longer (especially for a team that picked high in the draft often), the team will eventually purge themselves of those bad decisions. A bad owner, however, cannot be replaced, short of death or sale of the team. Usually these owners for different reasons (in Davis's case, the inability to perceive reality and the need for control) will consistently put underqualified or unqualified people into positions they should never be in, expect success, and (depending on the owner) be surprised/angry when they get failure. That is why there will be no cycle of success for the Raiders in the NFL until Al Davis is somehow removed from power.

Dam8610
11-06-2008, 12:04 PM
I don't think it's the responsibility of the league to determine the 'when' either. Might as well remain in the middle ground and let the problem fix itself. If it gets to a point where Al Davis is embarrassing the league and clearly shows he is not competent enough to run a franchise, then that's when the league or other owners can step in. Sadly, until then, i think it's out of their hands.

How many losing seasons does that take? I know it would have to be quite a few, as the NFL never tried to take action against Bob Irsay.

MetSox17
11-06-2008, 12:06 PM
There was an article a couple months back that talked about a potential solution to the Al Davis problem. The writer suggested the minority shareholders might be able to take some action due to his terrible mismanagement potentially costing them profits. He suggested they take a case to Goodell, who could potentially take some type of action to remove Al Davis at that point. Of course, even the writer acknowledged any scenario where Al Davis is no longer in total control of the Raiders before his death is a longshot.

And yes, the situation is that bad. The worst thing about bad owners is you can't replace them. Bad players can be replaced, sometimes almost immediately depending on the investment made in said player. Bad coaches can be replaced, their effect may linger for a little while (most believe it takes 3 years for a coach to install his own system), but it won't stay for very long. Even a bad GM can be replaced, and while his bad decisions usually will linger longer (especially for a team that picked high in the draft often), the team will eventually purge themselves of those bad decisions. A bad owner, however, cannot be replaced, short of death or sale of the team. Usually these owners for different reasons (in Davis's case, the inability to perceive reality and the need for control) will consistently put underqualified or unqualified people into positions they should never be in, expect success, and (depending on the owner) be surprised/angry when they get failure. That is why there will be no cycle of success for the Raiders in the NFL until Al Davis is somehow removed from power.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25555&highlight=coup

Bengalsrocket
11-06-2008, 12:57 PM
I think all owners have a desire to win. Some have this desire more than others. I think Jerry Jones would throw a ridiculous amount of money into his franchise if it guaranteed him a victory. I also think Jerry Jones knows how good winning is for the franchise.

With that being said, I believe that Al Davis' desire to win is extremely strong. The guy would literally do anything to win. The problem is, he seems to stubborn & stupid to find a solution to this franchise' problems. Meanwhile, when he tries to fix this team's problems he ends up just creating more of a mess for them.

As far as Mike Brown and the Bengals go: he's cheap, and he won't win **** till we get lucky in the draft a couple more times like we did with Palmer.

ChezPower4
11-06-2008, 01:33 PM
I'll take Al Davis over William Clay Ford any day of the week. Oakland may be a joke the last few years of Al's life, WCF has been a joke since he owned the team. H...mmm, 1 playoff appearance in 50+ years vs Al Davis's career record.
When WCF retires, the Lions will have zero talent on the team, when Davis dies, the new owner will probably have a pretty decent team to build upon.
The owner of the Bengals at least has some excuses for being a bad owner, Cincy is a very small city which provides their owner with minimal revenues upon which to build the team. He is known as being cheap but I think it has more to do with revenues than simply not wanting to spend money. Cincy has a very low budget for scouting and even the firing of a HC is affected by the cost of paying 2 HC's at the same time.
WCF on the other hand owns a team in one of the best markets in North America and revenues has never been a problem yet our scouting department is the worst in pro football??? WCF is by definition, the perfect example of the worst owner in sports. I think you can buy a share in the Ford Motor Company for about $2.10 a share on today's market. So the Lions aren't the only business he's driven into the ground.

Fords major problem is that he makes poor upper management decisions. The Lions have never had much talent because their front office has always been one of the worst in the NFL for a long time. Fords problem is he sticks with guy that he hires. Which can sometimes pay off over the long haul, but the down side is Ford sticks with the guys even when it's very clear that what their doing is not working nor does it look like their going to be successful (i.e Matt Millen)

As for Davis and the Raiders.... Davis does not give anyone time to have success. He doesn't believe in hiring a GM and when he hires a coach if he has one bad season Davis cans them. He needs to give guys time and mabye admitt that he's not doing a good job with the personnel decisions.